<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (3) TMI 435 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393291</link>
    <description>Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was treated as settled in favour of importers, and the departmental counsel stated that the Department had accepted the availability of the refund. In view of that accepted position, the impugned order could not be sustained, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund under the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 435 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393291</link>
      <description>Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was treated as settled in favour of importers, and the departmental counsel stated that the Department had accepted the availability of the refund. In view of that accepted position, the impugned order could not be sustained, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund under the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>